High-protein home parenteral nutrition in malnourished oncology patients: a systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 83% of oncology patients are affected by cancer-related malnutrition, depending on tumour location and patient age. Parenteral nutrition can be used to manage malnutrition, but there is no clear consensus as to the optimal protein dosage. The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to identify studies on malnourished oncology patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) where protein or amino acid delivery was reported in g/kg bodyweight/day, and to compare outcomes between patients receiving low (< 1 g/kg bodyweight/day), standard (1-1.5 g/kg/day), and high-protein doses (> 1.5 g/kg/day). METHODS: Literature searches were performed on 5th October 2021 in Embase, MEDLINE, and five Cochrane Library and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Searches were complemented by hand-searching of conference proceedings, a clinical trial registry, and bibliographic reference lists of included studies and relevant SLRs/meta-analyses. RESULTS: Nineteen publications were included; sixteen investigated standard protein, two reported low protein, and one included both, but none assessed high-protein doses. Only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) was identified; all other studies were observational studies. The only study to compare two protein doses reported significantly greater weight gain in patients receiving 1.15 g/kg/day than those receiving 0.77 g/kg/day. CONCLUSION: At present, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal protein dosage for malnourished oncology patients receiving HPN. Data from non-HPN studies and critically ill patients indicate that high-protein interventions are associated with increased overall survival and quality of life; further studies are needed to establish whether the same applies in malnourished oncology patients.

Cost-Consequences Analysis of Increased Utilization of Triple-Chamber-Bag Parenteral Nutrition in Preterm Neonates in Seven European Countries.

The safety of parenteral nutrition (PN) remains a concern in preterm neonates, impacting clinical outcomes and health-care-resource use and costs. This cost-consequence analysis assessed national-level impacts of a 10-percentage point increase in use of industry-prepared three-chamber bags (3CBs) on clinical outcomes, healthcare resources, and hospital budgets across seven European countries. A ten-percentage-point 3CB use-increase model was developed for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the UK. The cost-consequence analysis estimated the impact on compounding error harm and bloodstream infection (BSI) rates, staff time, and annual hospital budget. Of 265,000 (52%) preterm neonates, 133,000 (52%) were estimated to require PN. Baseline compounding methods were estimated as 43% pharmacy manual, 16% pharmacy automated, 22% ward, 9% outsourced, 3% industry provided non-3CBs, and 7% 3CBs. A modeled increased 3CB use would change these values to 39%, 15%, 18%, 9%, 3%, and 17%, respectively. Modeled consequences included -11.6% for harm due to compounding errors and -2.7% for BSIs. Labor time saved would equate to 41 specialized nurses, 29 senior pharmacists, 26 pharmacy assistants, and 22 senior pediatricians working full time. Budget impact would be a €8,960,601 (3.4%) fall from €260,329,814 to €251,369,212. Even a small increase in the use of 3CBs in preterm neonates could substantially improve neonatal clinical outcomes, and provide notable resource and cost savings to hospitals.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of supplemental parenteral nutrition in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend that parenteral nutrition (PN) is added to enteral nutrition (EN; supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN)) in order to meet energy and protein needs in patients with cancer when EN alone is insufficient. However, although cancer-related malnutrition is common, there is poor awareness of the value of nutritional care, resulting in SPN being chronically underused. METHODS: We performed a targeted literature review and exploratory cost-utility analysis to gather evidence on the clinical effectiveness of SPN, and to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of SPN versus EN alone in an example cancer setting. RESULTS: The literature review identified studies linking SPN with malnutrition markers, and studies linking malnutrition markers with clinical outcomes. SPN was linked to improvements in body mass index (BMI), fat-free mass, phase angle (PhA) and prealbumin. Of these markers, BMI and PhA were strong predictors of survival. By combining published data, we generated indirect estimates of the overall survival HR associated with SPN; these ranged from 0.80 to 0.99 (mode 0.87). In patients with Stage IV inoperable pancreatic cancer, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio versus EN alone was estimated to be £41 350 or £91 501 depending on whether nursing and home delivery costs for EN and SPN were combined or provided separately. CONCLUSION: Despite a lack of direct evidence, the results of the literature review demonstrate that SPN may provide important clinical and quality of life benefits to patients with cancer. The potential for any improvement in outcomes in the modelled patient population is very limited, so cost-effectiveness may be greater in patients with less severe disease and other types of cancer.

Modification of systemic anti-cancer therapies and weight loss, a population-level real-world evidence study.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary weight loss may occur during systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT), causing treatment disruption and poorer prognoses. There remain gaps in clinical awareness as to which patients may benefit from nutritional interventions that aim to prevent unintended weight loss during SACT.We utilised England's population-level cancer registry data, conducting a pan-cancer assessment of patient weight loss during SACT. We aimed to identify cancers with weight loss-associated treatment modifications, potential beneficiaries of nutritional intervention. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used England's Cancer Analysis System database, including SACT-treated adults with one tumour and ⩾2 weight recordings between 2014 and 2018. Binary weight loss (threshold: 2.5%) was derived from patients' most negative weight change from first SACT weight recording. The Martin et al. body mass index-adjusted weight loss grading system (BMI-WLG) was assigned. We describe binary weight loss, BMI-WLG and treatment modification status by cancer. Multivariate logistic regression models of weight loss (binary and BMI-WLG) and a composite outcome of patient treatment-modification status by cancer were produced. RESULTS: Our study population contained 200,536 patients across 18 cancers; 28% experienced binary weight loss during SACT. Weight loss patients were more likely to have multiple types of treatment modifications recorded across all cancers. Regression analyses included 86,991 patients. Binary weight loss was associated (p < 0.05) with higher likelihood of treatment modification in; colon [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42, 2.07]; gynaecologic (excl. ovarian) (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.01); stomach (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.06); lung (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.21, 1.58); leukaemia (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.55); head and neck (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.65) and oesophageal (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.64) cancers. In lung, colon, and grouped gastro-intestinal cancers, association between BMI-WLG and treatment modification increased by WLG. DISCUSSION: Our study is a wide assessment of weight loss during SACT using England's cancer registry data. Across different cancers we found patients have weight loss-associated treatment modifications during SACT, a precursor to poorer prognoses. Our findings highlight cancers that may benefit from improved nutritional intervention during SACT.